4.5 Article

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after transformation from low-grade follicular lymphoma: morphological, immunohistochemical, and FISH analyses

期刊

CANCER SCIENCE
卷 99, 期 9, 页码 1760-1768

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.00873.x

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is one of the most common subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and frequently transforms to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). To clarify some aspects of the natural history of FL, we retrospectively examined 43 consecutive patients who had DLBCL with pre- or coexisting FL grade 1 or 2. The patients comprised 22 men and 21 women with a median age of 53 years. Most of the patients (34/43) showed advanced-stage (III or IV) disease initially. We examined both FL and DLBCL components morphologically, immunohistochemically, and by interface fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH: IGH/BCL2 fusion, BCL6 translocation) analysis. Most of the DLBCLs were classified as the centroblastic subtype, with two exceptions of the anaplastic subtype. Immunohistochemical analysis of both the FL and DLBCL components revealed the following respective positivity rates: CD20 100%/100%, CD10 86%/66%, Bcl-2 96%/91%, Bcl-6 84%/88%, MUM1 16%/34%, CD30 0%/20%, CD138 0%/0%, and CD5 0%/3%. Loss of CD10 (6/36, 17%) and gain of MUM1 (7/28, 25%) and CD30 (5/21, 24%) through transformation were not infrequent. High positivity rates for Bcl-2 and Bcl-6 were maintained throughout transformation. Among the DLBCLs, 84% were classified as the germinal center B-cell phenotype (GCB) and 16% as non-GCB in accordance with the criteria of Hans et al. IGH/BCL2 fusion was detected by FISH in 89% of FLs and 82% of DLBCLs. BCL6 translocation was detected in 1/6 (17%) DLBCLs without IGH/BCL2 fusion. Thus, although the morphological features and FISH results for DLBCL were consistent with transformed FL, the immunophenotype showed wide heterogeneity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据